Physics and Infinity.
sadovnik socratus
==.
There is an opinion that science deals only with observable
universe. Then we have problem because modern physics
comes to situation when it meets unobservable world as
on the very small scales as on very big scales:
we cannot see quarks, virtual particles, gravitons
we cannot see dark energy- it is negative,
we cannot see dark mass- it neither emits nor reflects,
em waves- electron exist, but magneton- doesn’t: why?
Electron meets vacuum and we lost it- what is it destiny?
Some theories offer new spaces and particles which
no one can visualize.
Etc
It seems, to solve these problems we must understand the
unobservable world. In my opinion - the infinite world.
But, . . ‘ When you ask the theory questions, you have to be
very carful not to get infinite and inconsistent answer.’
/ ‘ The trouble with Physics’ page 55. Lee Smolin. /
Why?
Because there is a ‘scientific’ opinion- if the theory has
infinity it is wrong ( the scientist was mistaken).
It needs to escape from such solution ( using method
of renormalization ) and don’t think about it more.
Later, solving ‘infinity’ problem in such way we are
surprised that physics looks paradoxically.
#
Let us suppose that infinite world exists.
Then we can have materialistic (!) questions:
What are physical parameters of infinity?
How is possible to understand the infinity’s life?
How can we have concrete, finite, physical answers
from the infinity world?
What influence have infinite world on our Earth’s world?
P.S.
All answers must be received in the form of concrete
Physical laws and formulas!
Isn’t it a crazy project?
I think, Niels Bohr had waited for such project.
====.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus.
==================..
Boikat
> Physics and Infinity.
> ==.
> There is an opinion that science deals only with observable
> universe. Then we have problem because modern physics
> comes to situation when it meets unobservable world as
> on the very small scales as on very big scales:
> we cannot see quarks, virtual particles, gravitons
> we cannot see dark energy- it is negative,
> we cannot see dark mass- it neither emits nor reflects,
> em waves- electron exist, but magneton- doesn’t: why?
> Electron meets vacuum and we lost it- what is it destiny?
> Some theories offer new spaces and particles which
> no one can visualize.
> Etc
I think what you are addressing is called "theoretical physics".
<Snip remaining strangeness>
Boikat
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Boikat
<boi...@bellsouth.net>:
Even theoretical physics is rooted in the observable
universe; it's not simply blue-sky conjecture. His problem
is in the characterization of anything which can't be
handled and viewed with the naked eye as "unobservable". If
he really meant this he's a scientific illiterate.
><Snip remaining strangeness>
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
bpuharic
<is.so...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Physics and Infinity.
>==.
>There is an opinion that science deals only with observable
>universe. Then we have problem because modern physics
>comes to situation when it meets unobservable world as
>on the very small scales as on very big scales:
> we cannot see quarks, virtual particles, gravitons
depends on what you mean by 'see'. we can see their consequences.
> we cannot see dark energy- it is negative,
we can see its effects
> we cannot see dark mass- it neither emits nor reflects,
we can see its effects
>t seems, to solve these problems we must understand the
>unobservable world.
this is like saying you can't tell that it rained last night if you
only see wet trees and ground...
nonsense
John S. Wilkins
Nobody blame philosophy, OK?
>
>
> <Snip remaining strangeness>
>
> Boikat
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, Bond University
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
J. J. Lodder
> Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 28, 8:59 am, sadovnik socratus <is.socra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Physics and Infinity.
> > > ==.
> > > There is an opinion that science deals only with observable
> > > universe. Then we have problem because modern physics
> > > comes to situation when it meets unobservable world as
> > > on the very small scales as on very big scales:
> > > we cannot see quarks, virtual particles, gravitons
> > > we cannot see dark energy- it is negative,
> > > we cannot see dark mass- it neither emits nor reflects,
> > > em waves- electron exist, but magneton- doesn't: why?
> > > Electron meets vacuum and we lost it- what is it destiny?
> > > Some theories offer new spaces and particles which
> > > no one can visualize.
> > > Etc
> >
> > I think what you are addressing is called "theoretical physics".
>
> Nobody blame philosophy, OK?
What else is it good for?
Jan
Nick Keighley
> Physics and Infinity.
you use the term is several incompatible ways and gayly segway between
them. "the infinite" in the hippy new-agey meaning is not the aleph-
whatever of Cantorian mathematics. I'm not sure that "space is
infinite" and "space is infinitely divisible" are using infinity in
the same way. (the fact that both those statements may be untrue isn't
germane)
> There is an opinion that science deals only with observable
> universe.
it's pretty well the definition of science. Even the string theorists
hope their theories will eventually glom onto observables. Physics is
about physicals!
> Then we have problem because modern physics
> comes to situation when it meets unobservable world as
> on the very small scales as on very big scales:
> we cannot see quarks,
yes we can. Things like the LHC effectivly image quarks inside
protons.
> virtual particles,
we can observe effects like the Casimir effect. Most of the mass of
the proton is made of virtual particals.
> gravitons
we're stilllooking but we can certainly see the effects of gravity
which is theoretically carried by gravitons. Have you ever seen a
photon? Or just the electro-chemical effects of a photon colliding
with a dye moleculein your retina?
> we cannot see dark energy- it is negative,
we can see its effects. The universe is expanding faster and faster
due to DE
> we cannot see dark mass-
we can certainly see its effects. Stars at the edge of the galaxy move
faster than they should due to DM
> it neither emits nor reflects,
> em waves-
that's why it's called *dark* matter
> electron exist, but magneton- doesn’t: why?
the magnetic monopole? Magnetism can be quite handily explained by
Maxwell's equations. No magneton needed. Magnetism is just electro-
statics in motin.
> Electron meets vacuum and we lost it- what is it destiny?
if you fire an electron into a vacuum it'll come out the other side
eventually. This is how your TV used to work.
> Some theories offer new spaces and particles which
> no one can visualize.
> Etc
> It seems, to solve these problems we must understand the
> unobservable world.
only because you use a daft meaning for "observable". According to you
I can't observe X-rays. Yet my local hospital seems to mange ok.
> In my opinion - the infinite world.
you have a daft meaning for "infinite" as well. In what sense is a
quark "infinite"? Its mass and size are both bounded. Very bounded. I
can't think of something much *less* infinite than a quark!
> But, . . ‘ When you ask the theory questions, you have to be
> very carful not to get infinite and inconsistent answer.’
> / ‘ The trouble with Physics’ page 55. Lee Smolin. /
as I remarked you keep hopping meanings. Your infinites are
incommensurable.
> Why?
> Because there is a ‘scientific’ opinion- if the theory has
> infinity it is wrong ( the scientist was mistaken).
if the theory says some observable (eg mass of a particle) is infinite
and it is observed not to be infinite then, yes, the theory is wrong
(or in need of a feynman band-aid)
> It needs to escape from such solution ( using method
> of renormalization ) and don’t think about it more.
> Later, solving ‘infinity’ problem in such way we are
> surprised that physics looks paradoxically.
in what way is physics paradoxical? Are you using the term
"paradixical" in the sense of "not in accordance with common sense"?
Because I don't see why things that are ten orders smaller than us
*should* behave in an "every-day" fashion
> Let us suppose that infinite world exists.
I'd like you to define "infinity" more tightly first
> Then we can have materialistic (!) questions:
> What are physical parameters of infinity?
it's jolly big
> How is possible to understand the infinity’s life?
infinity has a life? Does it have a girl-friend?
> How can we have concrete, finite, physical answers
> from the infinity world?
> What influence have infinite world on our Earth’s world?
> P.S.
> All answers must be received in the form of concrete
> Physical laws and formulas!
> Isn’t it a crazy project?
> I think, Niels Bohr had waited for such project.
isn't he dead?
Paul J Gans
Spending time trying to figure out how things actually are so
that they can accept things as they are.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Earle Jones
*
On the subject of infinity, singularities, infinite density, etc:
Mathematicians: No problem. Infinite number of numbers. Dirac delta
(goes to infinity but doesn't stay there very long!)
Physicists: We don't like it but we can handle it.
Engineers: No way. "The pretty big bang".
Theologists: Whaaaaaa?? Goddiddit.
earle
*
J. J. Lodder
Just the other way round.
Physicists: no problem,
just calculate whatever you need.
(if you can, it is allowed, Dutch: wat kan, dat mag)
Mathematicians: We don't like it at all,
but give us another thirty years,
and we will finally find a way to handle it
in a way that suits us.
> Engineers: No way. "The pretty big bang".
All the way. Heaviside (a real engineer)
invented it long before Dirac,
in all but the name.
(he called it the derivative of a step function)
> Theologists: Whaaaaaa?? Goddiddit.
Who needs a theologian?
Jan
--
"It seems to be one of the fundamental features of nature that
fundamental physical laws are described in terms of mathematical theory
of great beauty and power, needing quite a high standard of mathematics
for one to understand it. You may wonder: Why is nature constructed
along these lines? One can only answer that our present knowledge seems
to show that it is so constructed. We simply have to accept it. One
could perhaps describe the situation by saying that God is a
mathematician of a very high order, and He used very advanced
mathematics in constructing the universe. Our feeble attempts at
mathematics enable us to understand a bit of the universe, and as we
proceed to develop higher and higher mathematics we can hope to
understand the universe better."
(Dirac)
J. J. Lodder
> Physics and Infinity.
> ==.
> There is an opinion that science deals only with observable
> universe.
No naive empirist propaganda please,
Jan
cassandra
wrote:
> On 28 Sep, 14:59, sadovnik socratus <is.socra...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip to focus>
> > we cannot see dark energy- it is negative,
>
> we can see its effects. The universe is expanding faster and faster
> due to DE
>
> > we cannot see dark mass-
>
> we can certainly see its effects. Stars at the edge of the galaxy move
> faster than they should due to DM
>
> > it neither emits nor reflects,
> > em waves-
>
> that's why it's called *dark* matter
Despite the real risk of being accused of supporting Socratus'
assertions, I think this point deserves more consideration than you
give it. My understanding is there are observations of the motions of
galaxies within clusters, and of the motions of stars within galaxies,
that appear contrary to the expectations of Newtonian and Einsteinian
gravitational theories. Dark Matter is invoked as one explanation for
these observations. To suggest these observations are evidence Dark
Matter sounds circular to me. Which one is evidence for the other?
Dark Matter is a very strange duck. Neil DeGrasse Tyson describes it
as an "aspect of the cosmos about which we are completely dumb
stupid.", and Wikipedia describes the name as "an expression of human
ignorance." If Dark Matter exists, not only must it not emit or
reflect EMR as Socratus says, but neither can it absorb EMR. And it
can't interact with our familiar baryonic matter except
gravitationally. That Dark Matter is assumed to be non-baryonic does
not imply that all non-baryonic matter qualifies as Dark Matter ex.
neutrinos.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Earle Jones
<earle...@comcast.net>:
Actually, most engineers I've worked with don't care either
way, since it doesn't intersect with design options.
>Theologists: Whaaaaaa?? Goddiddit.
Paul J Gans
>On Sep 29, 7:00 am, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>> On 28 Sep, 14:59, sadovnik socratus <is.socra...@gmail.com> wrote:
><snip to focus>
>> > we cannot see dark energy- it is negative,
>>
>> we can see its effects. The universe is expanding faster and faster
>> due to DE
>>
>> > we cannot see dark mass-
>>
>> we can certainly see its effects. Stars at the edge of the galaxy move
>> faster than they should due to DM
>>
>> > it neither emits nor reflects,
>> > em waves-
>>
>> that's why it's called *dark* matter
>Despite the real risk of being accused of supporting Socratus'
>assertions, I think this point deserves more consideration than you
>give it. My understanding is there are observations of the motions of
>galaxies within clusters, and of the motions of stars within galaxies,
>that appear contrary to the expectations of Newtonian and Einsteinian
>gravitational theories. Dark Matter is invoked as one explanation for
>these observations. To suggest these observations are evidence Dark
>Matter sounds circular to me. Which one is evidence for the other?
You are correct here. Newtonian (or even relativistic) calculations
can not duplicate the observed rotation of galaxies.
To do this we can invoke "dark matter" that has certain properties.
It reminds me of Fermi and the neutrino. It turns out that when
one tries to account for all the energy in a radioactive decay,
you can't. Some is missing. The idea was that the missing energy
was carried off by a then unknown particle. Turns out that the
guess was right.
>Dark Matter is a very strange duck. Neil DeGrasse Tyson describes it
>as an "aspect of the cosmos about which we are completely dumb
>stupid.", and Wikipedia describes the name as "an expression of human
>ignorance." If Dark Matter exists, not only must it not emit or
>reflect EMR as Socratus says, but neither can it absorb EMR. And it
>can't interact with our familiar baryonic matter except
>gravitationally. That Dark Matter is assumed to be non-baryonic does
>not imply that all non-baryonic matter qualifies as Dark Matter ex.
>neutrinos.
Again that is true. We need a particle that interacts only
gravitationally in order to make the galactic rotations work out.
Or we need a modification of the gravitational force.
Papers proposing various things appear at regular intervals in
the usual journals. The question is very open at the moment.
cassandra
Yes. I understand that's how many fundamental particle were
discovered; uncover an anomaly, and then look for a particle with the
right properties to explain it. Nothing wrong with that. But I also
understand that as of this moment, there are no known fundamental
particles that fit the bill for Dark Matter, and it is a working
hypothesis only. So to say that we see the effects of Dark Matter on
the motions of galaxies is premature at best.
Paul J Gans
Yes. That is circular reasoning.
Walter Bushell
> >right propert ies to explain it. Nothing wrong with that. But I also
> >understand that as of this moment, there are no known fundamental
> >particles that fit the bill for Dark Matter, and it is a working
> >hypothesis only. So to say that we see the effects of Dark Matter on
> >the motions of galaxies is premature at best.
>
> Yes. That is circular reasoning.
Elliptical reasoning, galaxies are primarily elliptical. ;)
--
The Chinese pretend their goods are good and we pretend our money
is good, or is it the reverse?
J. J. Lodder
Twas Pauli who did it.
Fermi contributed no more than the name,
Jan
cassandra
> In article <i86249$od...@reader1.panix.com>,
Circular is a special case of elliptical, n'est-ce pas?
> --
> The Chinese pretend their goods are good and we pretend our money
> is good, or is it the reverse?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Steven L.
"Earle Jones" <earle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:earle.jones-C7E9...@news.giganews.com:
Engineers: "Put it in writing."
-- Steven L.
Steven L.
"Walter Bushell" <pr...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:proto-148307....@news.panix.com:
Such puns should be barred. :-)
-- Steven L.
heekster
IIRC, a circle is the *degenerate* case of an ellipse.
heekster
Originally, in 1930, Pauli named the particle 'neutron'. James
Chadwick discovered a much more massive electrically neutral nuclear
particle in 1932 and also named it 'neutron', creating a situation
where two particles had the same name. Enrico Fermi coined the term
neutrino in 1934, to ameliorate this.
No nus is good nus.
Paul J Gans
>In article <i86249$ods$5...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> cassandra <cassand...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Oct 1, 1:15??pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> >> cassandra <cassandra99...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >On Sep 29, 7:00??am, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >> On 28 Sep, 14:59, sadovnik socratus <is.socra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> ><snip to focus>
>> >> >> > ??we cannot see dark energy- it is negative,
>> >>
>> >> >> we can see its effects. The universe is expanding faster and faster
>> >> >> due to DE
>> >>
>> >> >> > ??we cannot see dark mass-
>> >>
>> >> >> we can certainly see its effects. Stars at the edge of the galaxy move
>> >> >> faster than they should due to DM
>> >>
>> >> >> > it neither emits nor reflects,
>> >> >> > em waves-
>> >>
>> >> >> that's why it's called *dark* matter
>> >> >Despite the real risk of being accused of supporting Socratus'
>> >> >assertions, I think this point deserves more consideration than you
>> >> >give it. ??My understanding is there are observations of the motions of
>> >> >galaxies within clusters, and of the motions of stars within galaxies,
>> >> >that appear contrary to the expectations of Newtonian and Einsteinian
>> >> >gravitational theories. ??Dark Matter is invoked as one explanation for
>> >> >these observations. ??To suggest these observations are evidence Dark
>> >> >Matter sounds circular to me. ??Which one is evidence for the other?
>> >>
>> >> You are correct here. ??Newtonian (or even relativistic) calculations
>> >> can not duplicate the observed rotation of galaxies.
>> >>
>> >> To do this we can invoke "dark matter" that has certain properties.
>> >>
>> >> It reminds me of Fermi and the neutrino. ??It turns out that when
>> >> one tries to account for all the energy in a radioactive decay,
>> >> you can't. ??Some is missing. ??The idea was that the missing energy
>> >> was carried off by a then unknown particle. ??Turns out that the
>> >> guess was right.
>> >>
>> >> >Dark Matter is a very strange duck. ??Neil DeGrasse Tyson describes it
>> >> >as an "aspect of the cosmos about which we are completely dumb
>> >> >stupid.", and Wikipedia describes the name as "an expression of human
>> >> >ignorance." ??If Dark Matter exists, not only must it not emit or
>> >> >reflect EMR as Socratus says, but neither can it absorb EMR. ??And it
>> >> >can't interact with our familiar baryonic matter except
>> >> >gravitationally. ??That Dark Matter is assumed to be non-baryonic does
>> >> >not imply that all non-baryonic matter qualifies as Dark Matter ex.
>> >> >neutrinos.
>> >>
>> >> Again that is true. ??We need a particle that interacts only
>> >> gravitationally in order to make the galactic rotations work out.
>> >> Or we need a modification of the gravitational force.
>> >>
>> >> Papers proposing various things appear at regular intervals in
>> >> the usual journals. ??The question is very open at the moment.
>>
>> >Yes. I understand that's how many fundamental particle were
>> >discovered; uncover an anomaly, and then look for a particle with the
>> >right propert ies to explain it. Nothing wrong with that. But I also
>> >understand that as of this moment, there are no known fundamental
>> >particles that fit the bill for Dark Matter, and it is a working
>> >hypothesis only. So to say that we see the effects of Dark Matter on
>> >the motions of galaxies is premature at best.
>>
>> Yes. That is circular reasoning.
>Elliptical reasoning, galaxies are primarily elliptical. ;)
Yes. As they say "what goes around comes around" unless, of
course, that's just hyperbole.
Paul J Gans
Yes. Technically it is a degenerate case[1]. Tell that to
some of the more rabid idiots floating around.
[1] Graphs of quadratic equations have two axes. A circle results
when the two axes become equal in length.
Paul J Gans
>"Walter Bushell" <pr...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:proto-148307....@news.panix.com:
>> In article <i86249$ods$5...@reader1.panix.com>,
>> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>> > cassandra <cassand...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >On Oct 1, 1:15Â pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> > >> cassandra <cassandra99...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> >On Sep 29, 7:00Â am, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
>> > >> >wrote:
>> > >> >> On 28 Sep, 14:59, sadovnik socratus <is.socra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> ><snip to focus>
>> > >> >> > Â we cannot see dark energy- it is negative,
>> > >>
>> > >> >> we can see its effects. The universe is expanding faster and faster
>> > >> >> due to DE
>> > >>
>> > >> >> > Â we cannot see dark mass-
>> > >>
>> > >> >> we can certainly see its effects. Stars at the edge of the galaxy move
>> > >> >> faster than they should due to DM
>> > >>
>> > >> >> > it neither emits nor reflects,
>> > >> >> > em waves-
>> > >>
>> > >> >> that's why it's called *dark* matter
>> > >> >Despite the real risk of being accused of supporting Socratus'
>> > >> >assertions, I think this point deserves more consideration than you
>> > >> >give it. Â My understanding is there are observations of the motions of
>> > >> >galaxies within clusters, and of the motions of stars within galaxies,
>> > >> >that appear contrary to the expectations of Newtonian and Einsteinian
>> > >> >gravitational theories. Â Dark Matter is invoked as one explanation for
>> > >> >these observations. Â To suggest these observations are evidence Dark
>> > >> >Matter sounds circular to me. Â Which one is evidence for the other?
>> > >>
>> > >> You are correct here. Â Newtonian (or even relativistic) calculations
>> > >> can not duplicate the observed rotation of galaxies.
>> > >>
>> > >> To do this we can invoke "dark matter" that has certain properties.
>> > >>
>> > >> It reminds me of Fermi and the neutrino. Â It turns out that when
>> > >> one tries to account for all the energy in a radioactive decay,
>> > >> you can't. Â Some is missing. Â The idea was that the missing energy
>> > >> was carried off by a then unknown particle. Â Turns out that the
>> > >> guess was right.
>> > >>
>> > >> >Dark Matter is a very strange duck. Â Neil DeGrasse Tyson describes it
>> > >> >as an "aspect of the cosmos about which we are completely dumb
>> > >> >stupid.", and Wikipedia describes the name as "an expression of human
>> > >> >ignorance." Â If Dark Matter exists, not only must it not emit or
>> > >> >reflect EMR as Socratus says, but neither can it absorb EMR. Â And it
>> > >> >can't interact with our familiar baryonic matter except
>> > >> >gravitationally. Â That Dark Matter is assumed to be non-baryonic does
>> > >> >not imply that all non-baryonic matter qualifies as Dark Matter ex.
>> > >> >neutrinos.
>> > >>
>> > >> Again that is true. Â We need a particle that interacts only
>> > >> gravitationally in order to make the galactic rotations work out.
>> > >> Or we need a modification of the gravitational force.
>> > >>
>> > >> Papers proposing various things appear at regular intervals in
>> > >> the usual journals. Â The question is very open at the moment.
>> >
>> > >Yes. I understand that's how many fundamental particle were
>> > >discovered; uncover an anomaly, and then look for a particle with the
>> > >right propert ies to explain it. Nothing wrong with that. But I also
>> > >understand that as of this moment, there are no known fundamental
>> > >particles that fit the bill for Dark Matter, and it is a working
>> > >hypothesis only. So to say that we see the effects of Dark Matter on
>> > >the motions of galaxies is premature at best.
>> >
>> > Yes. That is circular reasoning.
>>
>> Elliptical reasoning, galaxies are primarily elliptical. ;)
>Such puns should be barred. :-)
Only at a galactic level.
John S. Wilkins
> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> >In article <i86249$ods$5...@reader1.panix.com>,
> > Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
...
> >> Yes. That is circular reasoning.
>
> >Elliptical reasoning, galaxies are primarily elliptical. ;)
>
> Yes. As they say "what goes around comes around" unless, of
> course, that's just hyperbole.
We need to bar this immediately before it spirals into a dustup, because
we are at best only partially armed for it.
J. J. Lodder
I wouldn't call Don Knuth an engineer,
Jan
--
Science is what we understand well enough to explain to a computer. Art
is everything else we do." (Donald Knuth)
James Beck
Wilkins) wrote:
>Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>> >In article <i86249$ods$5...@reader1.panix.com>,
>> > Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>...
>> >> Yes. That is circular reasoning.
>>
>> >Elliptical reasoning, galaxies are primarily elliptical. ;)
>>
>> Yes. As they say "what goes around comes around" unless, of
>> course, that's just hyperbole.
>
>We need to bar this immediately before it spirals into a dustup, because
>we are at best only partially armed for it.
KAOS is diabolical, but not perfect. Maybe we could section it off
with the cone of silence?
Paul J Gans
>> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>> >In article <i86249$ods$5...@reader1.panix.com>,
>> > Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>...
>> >> Yes. That is circular reasoning.
>>
>> >Elliptical reasoning, galaxies are primarily elliptical. ;)
>>
>> Yes. As they say "what goes around comes around" unless, of
>> course, that's just hyperbole.
>We need to bar this immediately before it spirals into a dustup, because
>we are at best only partially armed for it.
Evolution among the galaxies. Good to know that they evolve too
and for the same reasons we do.
Paul J Gans
His undergraduate degree is from an engineering school.... ;-)
r norman
He is redeemed by his graduate work from a science school!
J. J. Lodder
> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> >Steven L. <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >> "Earle Jones" <earle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >> news:earle.jones-C7E9...@news.giganews.com:
> >>
> >> > In article <1jpksqv.8g...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>,
> >> > nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > John S. Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > On Sep 28, 8:59 am, sadovnik socratus <is.socra...@gmail.com> wrot:
Albert Einstein graduated from one...., so?
Jan
Paul J Gans
But I didn't know Albert.
Paul J Gans
Oh, he was a pure math major. Graduated Number 1 in his class which
annoyed my brother greatly. He graduated Number 2 in the same class.
The difference was a single grade in a single class.
I was a grad student at the same place at the same time and enjoyed
listening to the bickering.
Steven L.
"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:i8b4p3$5ph$4...@reader1.panix.com:
When computer science was getting started as a brand-new discipline, it
wasn't entirely clear where it fit. The first research in theoretical
computer science, making use of abstract algebra and category theory and
number theory, didn't seem to fit with electrical engineering.
I remember that in the early 1970s, at Stanford University for example,
theoretical computer science was judged to be part of mathematics, not
electrical engineering. As a result, if you majored in computer science
at Stanford, you graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree, not a
Bachelor of Science degree.
Today, "computer science" seems to have devolved to a primary focus on
the Internet, which places it firmly in the engineering side of the
house.
-- Steven L.
Paul J Gans
Walter Bushell
Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >Today, "computer science" seems to have devolved to a primary focus on
> >the Internet, which places it firmly in the engineering side of the
> >house.
>
> At NYU it is still closely related to the Math Department.
There is a lot that is applied math. Order of calculations for Al Gore
Rhythms, for example.
Earle Jones
Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
*
He started out in Physics, switched to Mathematics and earned his PhD in
Mathematics from Cal Tech -- 1963.
earle
*
Paul J Gans
>In article <i8d14q$g46$3...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> >Today, "computer science" seems to have devolved to a primary focus on
>> >the Internet, which places it firmly in the engineering side of the
>> >house.
>>
>> At NYU it is still closely related to the Math Department.
>There is a lot that is applied math. Order of calculations for Al Gore
>Rhythms, for example.
True. As you know, but others may not, the NYU math department
is internationally known in applied math.
Paul J Gans
I know. I was being brief. I knew him slightly when he was an
undergraduate and I was a grad student. But my brother knew him
better, being in the same class.